Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 768
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:01:03 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Sunday 04 January 2004
 Number  768
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
2  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
3  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
4  Re:  dial up?? : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
5  Re:  dial up?? : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
6  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
7  Re:  dial up?? : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
8   Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
9  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
10  Re:  Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works : David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>
11  Re:  dial up?? : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
12  Re:  Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
13  Re:  dial up?? : Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
14  Re:  dial up?? : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
15   Timestamps on messages - Gavin : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
16  Re:  Timestamps on messages - Gavin : Tom Perrett" <tomp at st dot net dot au>
17  Re:  Timestamps on messages - Gavin : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:15:37 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

Just had a look at the TCPSTART>CMD file and everything underneath the line "echo 
STARTING THE TCP/IP PROCESSES ....." is rem'd out until the line "echo ..... 
FINISHED STARTING THE TCP/IP PROCESSES"  Should this be the case or should 
I unrem?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:32:16 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

Actually now I suspect it has something to do with Mozilla 1.4.1 as the behaviour I 
mentioned in the other post only occurs when Mozilla pops up with that site not found 
type of message.  I guess from there it's blocking the dial up connection from being 
recognised.  I've had PMmail running without dialup connection, let it try and fetch my 
mail, then dialed in to my ISP and PMmail has recognised the connection and fetched 
accordingly, whereas after Mozilla had been running without a connection, PMmail 
refused to connect after dialing in.  Will test with Netscape......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:43:58 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

Tell a lie.  PMmail also refused to connect if it tries to fetch BEFORE doip is started 
(dialling that is).  Is it tricked into thinking there is a network internet access?  I have no 
TCP/IP settings at all for any NIC.  I can't remember having this trouble before.  The 
only thing I've done recently is install PMfax Pro, and it put it's FMD driver into config

>Actually now I suspect it has something to do with Mozilla 1.4.1 as the behaviour I 
>mentioned in the other post only occurs when Mozilla pops up with that site not found 
>type of message.  I guess from there it's blocking the dial up connection from being 
>recognised.  I've had PMmail running without dialup connection, let it try and fetch my 
>mail, then dialed in to my ISP and PMmail has recognised the connection and fetched 
>accordingly, whereas after Mozilla had been running without a connection, PMmail 
>refused to connect after dialing in.  Will test with Netscape......
>
>
>

> 

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:40:41 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

It "shouldn't" be Mozilla. It will simply look for a TCPIP connection be it dial-up or
ADSL/Cable.

One question - do you have a local LAN as well ? If so the operation of starting your
dialer will actually have to stop your LAN-TCPIP configuration and then start the
dial-up-TCPIP one. This can be tricky if you haven't got the dialer configured correctly.

Which Dialer are you using ?

Cheers/2

Ed.

Gavin Miller wrote:

> Actually now I suspect it has something to do with Mozilla 1.4.1 as the behaviour I
> mentioned in the other post only occurs when Mozilla pops up with that site not found
> type of message.  I guess from there it's blocking the dial up connection from being
> recognised.  I've had PMmail running without dialup connection, let it try and fetch my
> mail, then dialed in to my ISP and PMmail has recognised the connection and fetched
> accordingly, whereas after Mozilla had been running without a connection, PMmail
> refused to connect after dialing in.  Will test with Netscape......
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:44:00 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

I already replied to your previous mail prior to reading this one so you have answered some of my
questions.

Since you yourself, have now recognised what has changed is your installation of PMFax, then I'd
suggest you remove it and check that all is OK.

I would recommend you switch from DOIP to Injoy dialer as it has far better capabilities and will
probably bring better performance and it is far more "network savvy" that DOIP.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Gavin Miller wrote:

> Tell a lie.  PMmail also refused to connect if it tries to fetch BEFORE doip is started
> (dialling that is).  Is it tricked into thinking there is a network internet access?  I have no
> TCP/IP settings at all for any NIC.  I can't remember having this trouble before.  The
> only thing I've done recently is install PMfax Pro, and it put it's FMD driver into config
>
> >Actually now I suspect it has something to do with Mozilla 1.4.1 as the behaviour I
> >mentioned in the other post only occurs when Mozilla pops up with that site not found
> >type of message.  I guess from there it's blocking the dial up connection from being
> >recognised.  I've had PMmail running without dialup connection, let it try and fetch my
> >mail, then dialed in to my ISP and PMmail has recognised the connection and fetched
> >accordingly, whereas after Mozilla had been running without a connection, PMmail
> >refused to connect after dialing in.  Will test with Netscape......
> >
> >
> >

> > 

> >
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:56:14 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

Thanks Ed,

Well it's not PMfax.  I do have a LAN, although I'm sure I didn't assign TCP/IP to the 
NIC.  I'll have a look and make sure, who knows.  I did have a cleanup of my HD and 
re-installed everything a little while back.  Perhaps I DO have TCP/IP on the NIC when I 
didn't beforehand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:57:57 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

If you need IP on the LAN, I can provide you with the pre and post commands you'll need to
handle this.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Gavin Miller wrote:

> Thanks Ed,
>
> Well it's not PMfax.  I do have a LAN, although I'm sure I didn't assign TCP/IP to the
> NIC.  I'll have a look and make sure, who knows.  I did have a cleanup of my HD and
> re-installed everything a little while back.  Perhaps I DO have TCP/IP on the NIC when I
> didn't beforehand.
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:01:50 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:   Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works

Hi all,

  I've just got a flyer from Officew Works and they are featuring a
Compaq 2168 (Athlon XP 2200+, 256MB RAM, 20GB HD, 14" TFT LCD,
CD-RW/DVD combo, 56k modem and 10/100 LAN) for AUS$1499.

  Has anyone had any experience with this model as regards OS/2 or eCS
installation on it ??

 Since it's labelled Compaq rather than HP-Compaq I suspect it's a
discontinued model, but it certainly seems to be a good price !

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:14:46 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

Nah not using the LAN for anything other than peer at this stage.  When I move to DSL 
perhaps, but not yet.

I did have TCP/IP assigned.  Removed it.  No change.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:21:07 +1100 (EDT)
From:  "David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>
Subject:  Re:  Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:01:50 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>  I've just got a flyer from Officew Works and they are featuring a
>Compaq 2168 (Athlon XP 2200+, 256MB RAM, 20GB HD, 14" TFT LCD,
>CD-RW/DVD combo, 56k modem and 10/100 LAN) for AUS$1499.
>
>  Has anyone had any experience with this model as regards OS/2 or eCS
>installation on it ??
>
> Since it's labelled Compaq rather than HP-Compaq I suspect it's a
>discontinued model, but it certainly seems to be a good price !
>

I saw it too and was a little interested.  But, for my use I'd have to add at least 512MB memory, and swap the drive fro a much larger.  
And, unfortunately, for work purposes, I need XPPro.

I had a look at the Compaq/HP site and I'm disgusted.  The old Compaq site contained everything needed about their older 
machines.  Now they don't even have specs for a machine that's for a machine that less than a year old.

The only useful information I could find was the download page for drivers.  There seems to be three versions of this the 2168.  But, 
other than the graphics card, there's now way to tell what the difference is.  One lists a graphics driver for the "ATI Mobility U1" and 
the others have "ATI RS200M".  Unfortunately, neither is listed as supported by SNAP.  But,  it's possible that they are just new 
names for existing chips.

Sound and modem are listed as "Conexant".  I don't know of any drivers for these.  And I don't recognise the network cards.  The 
PCMCIA chipset isn't listed so I can't comment on that.

I also had a look at <http://www.linux-on-laptops dot com/> to see if an Linux users had listed details.  It's not there, but, some of the 
machines with nearby model numbers seem similar.  The 2155US seems to share a lot of the same parts.

The Compaq driver download pages I found are: 

<http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres373974&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>

<http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres347371&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>

<http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres347389&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>

I don't know how much the above will help, but it's a start.
--
David Forrester
davidfor at internode.on dot net
http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:17:27 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

OK, and when you:

1. start Mozilla or PMMail or whatever.

2. start the dialer

3. try to access something (doesn't work)

4. bring up command prompt - type tcpstart (enter)

5. try to access again.

What is the result ?

Cheers/2

Ed.

Gavin Miller wrote:

> Nah not using the LAN for anything other than peer at this stage.  When I move to DSL
> perhaps, but not yet.
>
> I did have TCP/IP assigned.  Removed it.  No change.
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:00 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Compaq laptop on sale at Office Works

Hi David,

  I also agree on the need to upgrade memory to 512MB or more, harddisk, I could probably live with 20GB. Adding memory could be a swine if,
as often is the case, all memory slots are already populated and you have to remove the existing memory and replace it (eg 2 x 128MB) rather
than simply adding an extra DIMM.

  I found the driver download listings (for XP or W2K) as you did and I also found what appears to be a user handbook in PDF form.  What I'd
like is the engineers handbook. These are available on the IBM site for Thinkpads however as you say, the HP-Compaq site leaves a lot to be
desired ! I have yet to checkout the connexant site although I'm less worried about drivers for the modem as drivers for the NIC.

  The laptop comes with XP Home. If as you say you need XP Pro for work, then perhaps work should pay for it ? There are warnings in the
user manual however against installing the retail versions of XP as memory and USB errors are likely to occur if the Compaq modified
versions aren't used.

 By the date on the user manual, it seems the model was a current model up until at least the middle of 2003, so it's not that old.

Cheers/2

Ed.

David Forrester wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:01:50 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >  I've just got a flyer from Officew Works and they are featuring a
> >Compaq 2168 (Athlon XP 2200+, 256MB RAM, 20GB HD, 14" TFT LCD,
> >CD-RW/DVD combo, 56k modem and 10/100 LAN) for AUS$1499.
> >
> >  Has anyone had any experience with this model as regards OS/2 or eCS
> >installation on it ??
> >
> > Since it's labelled Compaq rather than HP-Compaq I suspect it's a
> >discontinued model, but it certainly seems to be a good price !
> >
>
> I saw it too and was a little interested.  But, for my use I'd have to add at least 512MB memory, and swap the drive fro a much larger.
> And, unfortunately, for work purposes, I need XPPro.
>
> I had a look at the Compaq/HP site and I'm disgusted.  The old Compaq site contained everything needed about their older
> machines.  Now they don't even have specs for a machine that's for a machine that less than a year old.
>
> The only useful information I could find was the download page for drivers.  There seems to be three versions of this the 2168.  But,
> other than the graphics card, there's now way to tell what the difference is.  One lists a graphics driver for the "ATI Mobility U1" and
> the others have "ATI RS200M".  Unfortunately, neither is listed as supported by SNAP.  But,  it's possible that they are just new
> names for existing chips.
>
> Sound and modem are listed as "Conexant".  I don't know of any drivers for these.  And I don't recognise the network cards.  The
> PCMCIA chipset isn't listed so I can't comment on that.
>
> I also had a look at <http://www.linux-on-laptops dot com/> to see if an Linux users had listed details.  It's not there, but, some of the
> machines with nearby model numbers seem similar.  The 2155US seems to share a lot of the same parts.
>
> The Compaq driver download pages I found are:
>
> <http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres373974&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
> Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>
>
> <http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres347371&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
> Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>
>
> <http://h20015.www2.hp dot com/en/softwareList.jhtml?reg=&cc=au&prodId=compaqpres347389&lc=en&plc=en&softitem=Microsoft%20
> Windows%20XP&sw_lang=en&pagetype=software>
>
> I don't know how much the above will help, but it's a start.
> --
> David Forrester
> davidfor at internode.on dot net
> http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   13 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:09:22 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

No difference.  No biggy, just need to remember to dial up beforehand.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:17:27 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:

>OK, and when you:
>
>1. start Mozilla or PMMail or whatever.
>
>2. start the dialer
>
>3. try to access something (doesn't work)
>
>4. bring up command prompt - type tcpstart (enter)
>
>5. try to access again.
>
>What is the result ?
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.
>
>Gavin Miller wrote:
>
>> Nah not using the LAN for anything other than peer at this stage.  When I move to 
DSL
>> perhaps, but not yet.
>>
>> I did have TCP/IP assigned.  Removed it.  No change.
>>
>
>>  
>
>

> 

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   14 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:06:01 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  dial up??

It is years since I used DOIP, but I'm pretty sure there is a setting that allows for the
problem you have. If it's "no biggy" then we probably shouldn't worry about it,
especially if you're planning to move to a permanent (ADSL) connection anyway.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Gavin Miller wrote:

> No difference.  No biggy, just need to remember to dial up beforehand.
>
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:17:27 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:
>
> >OK, and when you:
> >
> >1. start Mozilla or PMMail or whatever.
> >
> >2. start the dialer
> >
> >3. try to access something (doesn't work)
> >
> >4. bring up command prompt - type tcpstart (enter)
> >
> >5. try to access again.
> >
> >What is the result ?
> >
> >Cheers/2
> >
> >Ed.
> >
> >Gavin Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Nah not using the LAN for anything other than peer at this stage.  When I move to
> DSL
> >> perhaps, but not yet.
> >>
> >> I did have TCP/IP assigned.  Removed it.  No change.
> >>
> >
> >>  
> >
> >

> > 

> >
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   15 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:30 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:   Timestamps on messages - Gavin

Hi Gavin,

I'm just ondering whether PMMail for OS/2 has a problem similar to Post 
Road Mailer,
because all of your messages are arriving with a timestamp one hour into 
the future, I see Ed's responses to your messages before your originals, 
with mail set to chronological order.

Following message to os2user at yahoogroups dot com yesterday refers - I 
unfortunately deleted the original when it was all cleared up 
satisfactorily, so this is the edited copy from Yahoo os2user pages.
-----------------------------------------
From:  Steve McCrystal <smccrystal at w...>
Date:  Sat Jan 3, 2004  11:04 pm
Subject:  Re: LVM 'situation'

** Reply to note from Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at d...> Sat, 03 Jan 2004
15:12:26 +1000
Mike,

 > Hi Steve, As your message came in I noticed that your response came in
indicating it
 > predated my message you were replying to.

 > From your headers - Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:52:25 *CDT* - I thought 
only the
Southern
 > Hemisphere was on Daylight time currently :-D

<G> Must be a PostRoad Mailer thing. My TZ setting is correct in CONFIG.SYS,
but there is a
manual setting in PostRoad that one must remember to change twice a year.
Obviously, I don't
remember until someone reminds me!

What's this one say?

Steve
------------------------------------------
[he'd fixed it !!]

TIA

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   16 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:12:46 +1100 (AEDT)
From:  "Tom Perrett" <tomp at st dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Timestamps on messages - Gavin

I use it too, so what happens with me, eh?

Tom

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:30 +1000, Mike O'Connor wrote:

>Hi Gavin,
>
>I'm just ondering whether PMMail for OS/2 has a problem similar to Post 
>Road Mailer,
>because all of your messages are arriving with a timestamp one hour into 
>the future, I see Ed's responses to your messages before your originals, 
>with mail set to chronological order.
>
>
>Following message to os2user at yahoogroups dot com yesterday refers - I 
>unfortunately deleted the original when it was all cleared up 
>satisfactorily, so this is the edited copy from Yahoo os2user pages.
>-----------------------------------------
>From:  Steve McCrystal <smccrystal at w...>
>Date:  Sat Jan 3, 2004  11:04 pm
>Subject:  Re: LVM 'situation'
>
>** Reply to note from Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at d...> Sat, 03 Jan 2004
>15:12:26 +1000
>Mike,
>
> > Hi Steve, As your message came in I noticed that your response came in
>indicating it
> > predated my message you were replying to.
>
> > From your headers - Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:52:25 *CDT* - I thought 
>only the
>Southern
> > Hemisphere was on Daylight time currently :-D
>
><G> Must be a PostRoad Mailer thing. My TZ setting is correct in CONFIG.SYS,
>but there is a
>manual setting in PostRoad that one must remember to change twice a year.
>Obviously, I don't
>remember until someone reminds me!
>
>What's this one say?
>
>Steve
>------------------------------------------
>[he'd fixed it !!]
>
>TIA
>
>-- 
>Regards,
>Mike
>
>Failed the exam for
>--------------------
>MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
>--------------------
>[ISP blocks *.exe attachments]
>[Please use zipped versions of above]
>
>

> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   17 ==========================**

Date:  Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:54:33 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Timestamps on messages - Gavin

Tom Perrett wrote:

>I use it too, so what happens with me, eh?
>
>Tom
>
>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:30 +1000, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
>>Hi Gavin,
>>
>>I'm just wondering whether PMMail for OS/2 has a problem similar to Post Road Mailer, because all of your messages are arriving with a timestamp one hour into the future, I see Ed's responses to your messages before your originals, with mail set to chronological order.
>>
>>Following message to os2user at yahoogroups dot com yesterday refers - I 
>>unfortunately deleted the original when it was all cleared up 
>>satisfactorily, so this is the edited copy from Yahoo os2user pages.
>>-----------------------------------------
>>From:  Steve McCrystal <smccrystal at w...>
>>Date:  Sat Jan 3, 2004  11:04 pm
>>Subject:  Re: LVM 'situation'
>>
>>** Reply to note from Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at d...> Sat, 03 Jan 2004
>>15:12:26 +1000
>>Mike,
>>
>>>Hi Steve, As your message came in I noticed that your response came in indicating it predated my message you were replying to.
>>>      
>>>
>>>From your headers - Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:52:25 *CDT* - I thought only the Southern
>>>      
>>>
>>>Hemisphere was on Daylight time currently :-D
>>>      
>>>
>><G> Must be a PostRoad Mailer thing. My TZ setting is correct in CONFIG.SYS, but there is a manual setting in PostRoad that one must remember to change twice a year.
>>Obviously, I don't remember until someone reminds me!
>>
>>What's this one say?
>>
>>Steve
>>------------------------------------------
>>[he'd fixed it !!]
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>-- 
>>Regards,
>>Mike
>>    
>>

Hi Tom,
Yours came in correctly timed - 5 seconds after you sent it - you sent with:

Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:12:46 +1100 (AEDT)

I received with:

Delivery-date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:12:51 +1100 ,  but as I keep AEST 
operative all year here - 2KM south of the Qld. border it showed up in 
my IBMWB-Mail inbox as 18:12

So if it's not PMMail, he must have something else askew -

Looking again at the headers on a recent message of his :

Delivery-date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:39:09 +1100         <<< this should 
have shown up in my inbox as 07:39 [Standard time] - actually shows as 
08:43 [Standard time]
[210.9.195.23])
  by mail. (Weasel v1.689) for <os2genau at os2 dot org dot au>;
 04 Jan 2004 08:38:26 +1100
Received: (qmail 9626 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 21:29:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO MYHOSTNAME) (210.9.194.64)
  by 0 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2004 21:29:42 -0000
From: "Gavin Miller" <drumextreme at impulse dot net dot au>
To: "os2genau at os2 dot org dot au" <os2genau at os2 dot org dot au>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:43:58 +1000 (EST)

The last line is the one that's causing the problem -  the TZ is set to 
Eastern *Standard* time, but his System clock is set to *Daylight* 
*Savings* time and is 14m16s fast to boot!  :-(  
Prefacing  both EST and EDT with an "A" in Australia is simpler as by 
definition the OS/2 system recognises EST/EDT as pertaining only to the 
Eastern timezone in the USA [-0500/-0400 respectively].

Please fix Gavin.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------